Absolutely. And as my blog is on livejournal, which is _also_ an RSS reader, I get most of my news via http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/friends/news
The problem is that many modern categorisation systems assume that people know how they want to categorise their own data. They therefore aalow individuals to use whatever word/phrase they want to tag their data with. These tags can conflict both with other users (for instance one user could use "Mac" to refer to items related to Apple Macintoshes while another uses "Macintosh" and a third uses "Apple") and with themselves (when a user's nomenclature changes or they mistype).
There are a few obvious solutions to this: 1) Reuse: Help the user to re-use their old tags by offering them a list of previously used tags - this will prevent typos and unintentional changes. 2) Synonyms: Help users to lump tags together by stating that "Mac" and "Macintosh" mean the same, as far as they are concerned. When they look for tags in the same category as "Mac" the search will automatically be broadened to include similar ones. 3) Build categories from the most commonly used tags. This returns to the top-down imposition of structure, but builds it from the tags that people actually use. If a tag is used by more than x% of the population then categorise it and assign it a detailed description. For instance, if more than 1% of people are using "Mac" as a tag, then "Apple Macintosh Computer" could be assigned as a detailed description. Users could then choose to use the 'official' tag. Synonyms would also exist, so that "Macintosh" and "Apple" would both link to this single 'anchor'.
The use of more-defined descriptions would allow multiple meanings for the same tag to exist, so that someone using "Apple" as a tag could be offered the choice of attaching that tag to the definition "Apple Macintosh Computer", "Apple Fruit" or "Apple Music Corporation". The user could obviously also attach it to any other definition or leave it definitionless.
I am, of course, assuming that most people would find utility in using common definitions, as it would allow them to find things that used the same tags, whilst leaving them the freedom to use any tag they like for their own use.
It's not that complicated a concept - systems have arised which allow you to categorise your own information (bookmarks and photos in the two examples given). Because everyone can use whatever categories they find useful for themselves this means that I can tag my Mac stuff "mac", you can use "Macintosh" and someone else can use "Apple", leading to miscommunication.
Blogs, journals, etc. have replaced mailing lists for my friends (aged 26-35) as the way of keeping up to date with each other and arranging social events. Sure, we still email for 1-1 conversation, but for broadcast blogs just seem more efficient.
Craig, if anyone ought to read about dealing with groups on a large scale, it's you. Have you read: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy. html "A group is its own worst Enemy"?
But you also said that with ideal compression they are the same. The amount of metadata is going to significantly outweigh the amount of straight text there is. Not to mention the fact that people have different accents to each other, and everyone has a different variation to everyone else.
Either they have to create new shares out of nowhere (diluting existing ones) or they have to go out and buy shares at market prices and sell them at the option price, which _is_ an expense.
Either way round this should be reflected in the accounts of the company, and a notional value which reflects the effect on the companies stock seems to be the easiest way to get this across to your average investor.
Alternatively, BC wasn't going to be ready in time for the XBox, and was therefore canned. And Unity wasn't going to be ready in time for the GC and was therefore canned.
If either one was likely to make money, it would have been carried on...
Seriously - I looked forward to various new C&C games, then was constantly dissapointed to discover they hadn't actually fixed simple things like pathfinding.
Well, if someone could point me at a simple way of setting up an LDAP server that didn't require lots of idiosyncratic text files I'd really appreciate it...
Depends what filtering we're talking about. Filtering of viruses and definite spam belong on the server. But when a lot of spam is 'possibles' then I want it filtered as close to me as possible so that I can check myself.
If nothing else I've had friends forward me particularly amusing spam in the past...
Slashdot Mirror
Being British I know that Categorise is the correct way to spell that, and that you darn colonials have got it all messed up.
I'll give you arised though - I was obviously not very awake at that time in the morning.
Absolutely. And as my blog is on livejournal, which is _also_ an RSS reader, I get most of my news via http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/friends/news
Aaah - I grasped "bottom-up taxonomies" instantly. I do realise that studying 'knowledge' at university may have given me a bit of a hand there tho :->
The problem is that many modern categorisation systems assume that people know how they want to categorise their own data. They therefore aalow individuals to use whatever word/phrase they want to tag their data with. These tags can conflict both with other users (for instance one user could use "Mac" to refer to items related to Apple Macintoshes while another uses "Macintosh" and a third uses "Apple") and with themselves (when a user's nomenclature changes or they mistype).
There are a few obvious solutions to this:
1) Reuse: Help the user to re-use their old tags by offering them a list of previously used tags - this will prevent typos and unintentional changes.
2) Synonyms: Help users to lump tags together by stating that "Mac" and "Macintosh" mean the same, as far as they are concerned. When they look for tags in the same category as "Mac" the search will automatically be broadened to include similar ones.
3) Build categories from the most commonly used tags. This returns to the top-down imposition of structure, but builds it from the tags that people actually use. If a tag is used by more than x% of the population then categorise it and assign it a detailed description. For instance, if more than 1% of people are using "Mac" as a tag, then "Apple Macintosh Computer" could be assigned as a detailed description. Users could then choose to use the 'official' tag. Synonyms would also exist, so that "Macintosh" and "Apple" would both link to this single 'anchor'.
The use of more-defined descriptions would allow multiple meanings for the same tag to exist, so that someone using "Apple" as a tag could be offered the choice of attaching that tag to the definition "Apple Macintosh Computer", "Apple Fruit" or "Apple Music Corporation". The user could obviously also attach it to any other definition or leave it definitionless.
I am, of course, assuming that most people would find utility in using common definitions, as it would allow them to find things that used the same tags, whilst leaving them the freedom to use any tag they like for their own use.
It's not that complicated a concept - systems have arised which allow you to categorise your own information (bookmarks and photos in the two examples given). Because everyone can use whatever categories they find useful for themselves this means that I can tag my Mac stuff "mac", you can use "Macintosh" and someone else can use "Apple", leading to miscommunication.
Blogs, journals, etc. have replaced mailing lists for my friends (aged 26-35) as the way of keeping up to date with each other and arranging social events. Sure, we still email for 1-1 conversation, but for broadcast blogs just seem more efficient.
And how do you edit them? PDF editing is a complete nightmare...
This would be someone who's never used other than PCs.
Z/OS (the IBM mainframe OS) can open files to be read,overwritten, modified or appended to. And yes, that's all at OS level.
Craig, if anyone ought to read about dealing with groups on a large scale, it's you. Have you read:. html
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy
"A group is its own worst Enemy"?
But you also said that with ideal compression they are the same. The amount of metadata is going to significantly outweigh the amount of straight text there is. Not to mention the fact that people have different accents to each other, and everyone has a different variation to everyone else.
these days most nerds are Linux users
You're obviously hanging out with very different nerds to me. Are you mostly hanging out with the people from the local LUG?
In about 6 minutes, apparently :->
Strangely, a standard goodle search brings up loads of very good results:u cts
http://www.google.com/search?q=c%23+str
Either they have to create new shares out of nowhere (diluting existing ones) or they have to go out and buy shares at market prices and sell them at the option price, which _is_ an expense.
Either way round this should be reflected in the accounts of the company, and a notional value which reflects the effect on the companies stock seems to be the easiest way to get this across to your average investor.
Snow would explain it.
Alternatively, BC wasn't going to be ready in time for the XBox, and was therefore canned. And Unity wasn't going to be ready in time for the GC and was therefore canned.
If either one was likely to make money, it would have been carried on...
Livejournal has a 5000-comment limit. She may have to actually make a second post...
Channel? Why on earth would you have channels?
to actually fix the navigation.
Seriously - I looked forward to various new C&C games, then was constantly dissapointed to discover they hadn't actually fixed simple things like pathfinding.
Well, if someone could point me at a simple way of setting up an LDAP server that didn't require lots of idiosyncratic text files I'd really appreciate it...
What about the address book? I'd love to have the address book synching across installs...
In these days of huge video downloads and P2P music sharing, email is _not_ that big a deal, traffic wise.
Receiving 250 spams a day, on the other hand, is.
Depends what filtering we're talking about. Filtering of viruses and definite spam belong on the server. But when a lot of spam is 'possibles' then I want it filtered as close to me as possible so that I can check myself.
If nothing else I've had friends forward me particularly amusing spam in the past...
Notice that the argument for lists the problems we face and talks about solutions.
The argument against merely says "People promised this back in ancient times and it didn't work. So it won't work now."
Which about as valid as saying "Crystal Balls are fake, so we'll never invent a way of seeing things on the other side of the planet."
A trailer for a video game has excellent graphics! Who's have thought it?
What's that? The in-game graphics might not be as good?
The advert might have been created on a render-farm?
They've been doing this kind of thing for years?
Tell me it's not true!
(oh, and the plot looked terrible)